|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I agree with you your goal completely, Guurzak. Here's how I've been thinking about fast travel in PFO (besides thinking along the same lines as the above posters):
The geography is such that there are only a handful of chokepoints at which to access another 'elevation,' which increases the number of hexes needed to travel to reach a destination. It also potentially increases the risk of bumping into bandits.
Bandits will be able to Ambush people out of Fast Travel (this used to be a function of the now defunct hideout structure, but I think bandits can still do this). I also seem to remember mention of NPC monsters from nearby escalations possibly being able to do the same, but I could be wrong there (in which case, add it, GW! Another good reason to have a strong force of PvEers in your settlement: clear escalations from major highways!)
I hope there will be ways for settlements and/or POIs to affect fast travel in their areas.
FMS Quietus wrote:
I am not going to respond, because you already know that I was referring to T7V vs Pax as the 'rhetoric' I thought you brought in here (and yes I did use the word purposefully). There was a time of confusion when some believed the issue was simply a political battle between 2 large groups; I just wanted to point out that the evidence out there is to the contrary.
We do not want to derail this perfectly fine thread by bringing up the thread that shall not be named, right?
Like I said, I tried to keep the drama level low in my posts, but I anticipated a flare-up =/ Sorry for my part in dredging this up, all!
Editted to be better...
Ok so now I see my problem, after realizing which settlement icon was for Thod's friends... I actually thought the Emerald Spire was located in the strange swamplands between Z and Y!
I see now the 7 plains hexes between Golgotha and Thod's Friends must be the Emerald Spire. Thanks for clearing that up for me, sorry! Carry on...
I think you bring up some important points to think on, Calidor. I especially agree that the first impression is a big deal. I think I've only ever seen 2 reviews for MMOs after they have had some patches, and I didn't end up buying the games despite my interest because my buddies had already shunned them.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I think that if I had seen Rust before we planned Pathfinder Online we might have risked a much more minimum game than we did. As it is, we're still pretty "minimum" compared to what most people think of when they think of an MMO, but there's a pretty robust game in there already. It's a long way more complex than Rust.
Of course, as you said (along with Morbis in the quoted thread), the subscription model adds another element to the equation.
Shane Gifford of Fidelis wrote:
I didn't see it that way; no worries. And I was doing likewise; simply trying to block the eye poke (scroll down to the first photo) =P
I was cringing while posting what I did because I was anticipating some would read what they expected to see and not what I wanted to communicate. I actually breathed a sigh of relief when I saw Morbis's post (before he edited to address mine). I recognize I should have made it clearer for those that specifically avoided that thread that Pax had non-Pax support; anybody that didn't avoid that thread certainly came away from it seeing that it was a very divisive subject for the community.
Indeed. I tried to keep my post short!
Like I said in my post, which you took care to quote, many people from T7V were 'pro-Golgotha,' so I find it difficult to perceive it as T7V vs. Golgotha.
The only large group that all came out on one side of the issue was Pax. Pax Aeternum, Golgotha, and Fidelis. As I said, those weren't the only people that held that position.
EDIT: And of course there were numerous people from all groups, large and small, that simply didn't voice their opinions, feeling it wasn't worth getting tangled up in the situation =P
It is my understanding that you begin using your Kickstarter play time when you activate your account to enter the world. I believe this was stated several times in various places, but unfortunately it was so long ago I can't remember where =P
So for me, depending on how Alpha looks at the end, I may wait a few months until more of the systems that I'm interested in have entered the game
EDIT: That's what I get for leaving my browser open for 13 minutes before responding ><
Putting name or other words with a crafted item is not minimum viable product and has resource and complexity issues. Look to be much later and may involve store. As an example, could more than one person use same label? How much more to have unique or sole user of a label?
Hmm, yeah maybe naming an item should be a store item. A player could purchase the ability to rename an item and send the name they want in for approval. That way they could charge $1 or w/e to cover the costs of having a goblin browse through a list of suggested names once a day to 'ok' them. Of course, a player should thread their named items to avoid losing them =)
FMS Quietus wrote:
Two large groups having a spat does not equate to the whole community. I agree with you about drama and not having time for it. Ozem's Vigil is the ONLY settlement in the top ten that's independent. We stand firm in our independence and will form alliances on a case by case basis per settlement for now. More groups have stepped forward as well with the same stance. I'm happy to see this because it starts to tear down the Us vs Them mentality that's been prevalent of late.
It was not two large groups, it was one large group and many persons from diverse groups, a handful of which were from another large group... a group from which many other members held an opposing view.
If Ozem's Vigil is independent, you could demonstrate it by not dragging Pax's rhetoric in here.
I'm making this short and sweet because I'm cringing posting this almost as much as when I read the above quote ><
I really see no reason to punish the low-rep characters further by allowing anybody to attack them without consequence.
I think that those that want to dish out cold vengeance should resign themselves to not being the most reputable pinnacles of law and goodness.
We have an alignment system and a reputation system, let them work .
Every open PvP MMO I'm aware of has RPKing without many/any limits. In my mind, PFO is different from ALL of the rest in that it is making a reduction of RPKing a core principle of the game (rather than attempting it and mostly failing, as some have done).
Note that I like RPKing; I've just resigned myself to accepting that it is being limited in PFO.
BurnHavoc, I feel for you man, but I just don't think GW is going to give up on the rep mechanic. It's a central part of their plan to reduce Random Player Killing.
We're not sure how much RPKing will be tolerated yet. The point at which a player is deemed a low-rep murder hobo may be 1 unsanctioned kill per hour/day/week.
That said, I don't think it will be hard to find somebody that you can kill without rep penalties. There are: Criminals, Bounties, Feuds, Wars, Factional hostilities, Voluntary PvP flags, and SADs (I thought if they refuse there is no rep loss to killing?) for instance.
I think the sort of PvP GW is trying to encourage is settlement vs settlement rather than player vs randomplayer.
EDIT: Ninja'd =(
Nihimon hasn't forced any Roseblood Accord or T7V member into any action, nor can any member do the same to him.
This is obvious to anybody genuinely interested in the truth; look back at all the friends of Nihimon that publicly posted their disagreements with him in this and other threads, sometimes very passionate disagreements.
The UNC withdrew their application willingly when they realized they would not be able to extort money from members in exchange for not raiding their caravans; stop pretending to be wounded. The 'extra' questions asked of you were necessary, apparently, because the UNC did not have the same idea of what the Accord is as every member then and since. That was the fear when the questions were asked, and it turns out that fear was justified.
Please, stop trying to manufacture and dredge up events long past.
Please ignore Xeen with extreme prejudice. He has a reputation.
Gabriel Mobius wrote:
I prefer heavy penalties to flat restrictions because then, if somebody is really douchey, I have the chance to decide whether the penalty is worth it.
I actually thought it was pretty funny =PYou've said enough to attempt to calm the situation that I didn't assume malicious intent
TEO Papaver wrote:
Wrong. Nihimon has a part in it, but nearly ALL of the responsibility of how a person views Nihimon is on that person.
Gol PotatoMcWhiskey wrote:
Golgotha still hasn't dealt with all the issues the community had.
Really, all the posts from Pax, one after another, suggest that there is no issue and therefore Nihimon must have nefarious purposes. This is patently untrue.
Own up that not everybody thinks what you're doing is right. Quite attacking people for having a different opinion than you.
"The Goodfellow" wrote:
Yeah, I thought this was why UNC didn't join?
Basically what has been already said.
As a kingdom expands, it becomes harder and harder to expand. I'm not entirely sure, but it could be that either:
There is a hardcap to how big a settlement can get or
At that point, politics with other nations comes into play in order to strengthen your player faction.
We know Pax doesn't think so, but not a few people believe Pax was and/or is still breaking the rules (knowingly, even), depending on their opinion.
That aside, I don't see any point in publicly debating any potential rule breaking further. Pax has made their position clear; nothing else will come of further public debate.
Nihimon has more apology posts on this forum than anybody else, I think. He's a good guy like that. He doesn't have a problem evaluating his behavior after the fact. Given the chance, he will own up to his mistakes.
Hmm, I can see how that quote from Morbis could be misunderstood.
I was under the impression that Morbis was saying "Golgotha has lost 3 votes from Golgotha members that voted for Aeternum in Land Rush 1" rather than "Golgotha is losing 3 votes now as we move the votes rightfully to Aeternum"
The fact that I and others consider that quote as the exact opposite of what Nihimon was saying lends itself to Nihimon making a mistake, not slandering Pax.
Nihimon would have to be stupid to publicly make a statement that he knew to be false and then include the quote that says the exact opposite in that statement. Nihimon is not stupid and he is not a slanderer; he has made the mistake of posting his suspicion as fact.
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Nihimon lists the 3 rules in his post. Pax broke the third, then stopped breaking it. Whether they broke the first depends on if you feel Pax is one guild.
Saint Caleth wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if others had changed their mind after Pax's handling of the other, seperate, resolved issue.
Monty Wolf wrote:
I think it's easy to mistake you as a troll because you seem to not accept that somebody can have a different opinion than you. Trolls usually do that, they ignore what people are saying and make inflammatory remarks.
Hmm, I can see how that quote from Morbis could be misunderstood.
Nihimon, I was under the impression that Morbis was saying "Golgotha has lost 3 votes from Golgotha members that voted for Aeternum in Land Rush 1" rather than "Golgotha is losing 3 votes now as we move the votes rightfully to Aeternum"
Judging from their recent statements, that is indeed what they meant =)
EDIT: And as the only evidence of wrongdoing is a quote that could be understood either way... I'm not sure there's enough to go on for a public accusation.
Yeah, I joined T7V because of the focus on letting players be, when the few other organizations tended towards a less democratic leadership structure and a focus on the membership working for the good of the whole. When I first saw the Roseblood Accord (one of the first things I saw when I came back to the forum), I was wholly against it. I did some research before posting my concerns too loudly and I was satisfied with the result:
It seems to me that the Roseblood Accord is simply a bunch of individual member groups that hope to foster a certain style of play in their areas. They believe that this style of play is important to the enjoyment of their membership, and will help other members have fun. I don't think that precludes warring on each other, or necessitates common defense.
So, joining the Roseblood Accord through T7V doesn't change anything about my experience in T7V, because T7V was already planning on adhering to this principle. T7V will still do what T7V wants to do, like every other member of the Roseblood Accord.
Also please note that my personal views of PvP are such that I would be completely comfortable in a group like UNC... Those who remember my posts from long ago when the PvP debate was raging will remember that I was almost uniformly against further restrictions/penalties on PvP/RPKing.
I simply joined T7V when I did because I respected the people that first joined it (and I am happy to say that we continue to recruit the same caliber members and allies!).
Again, my opinion on what the Accord is should be highly discounted if anybody posts differently, because I was simply thrown into this as a member of T7V and have not had any discussion about this with anybody, except having read this thread =P
Monty Wolf wrote:
Yeah, once Xeen and Bludd realized, in this thread, that their group did not share the same idea of what 'positive gameplay' is, they said "what's the point of us joining?" and stopped asking to be admitted. I think that was a pretty rational response; they would lose a lot of income by agreeing not to attack members of the RA for free... outside of the Roseblood Accord, they stand to make a pretty penny in pay-offs and banditry from it's members =P
Monty Wolf wrote:
I don't see how that question makes any sense based on what you quoted from me. Nobody has any control over what Roseblood Accord members do. There is no governing body.
Also, I haven't seen any evidence that any Roseblood Accord member group believes that theirs is the only valid opinion of what 'positive gameplay' is; they simply share the same general idea of what it means.
Again, if a group within the Roseblood Accord wants to go to war, it's up to other individual groups to decide if they will join them. Is there something ambiguous about this that I can clarify?